Tuesday, March 1, 2016

The Art of Deception, an opinion article by Max D. Crapo

The Art of Deception

Recently David Bednar, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints engaged in a question and answer
session with Spanish speaking members of the Church.

The question was “How can homosexual members of the church live and remain steadfast in
the gospel?”

What followed was a classic example of political
posturing, vague generalizations, an apples-to-oranges comparison, subtle
shaming through trivialization and capped with an outright lie.

There is an unwritten rule in politics. If you are asked a question you do not
want to answer, change the question and answer that one instead. Without missing
a beat, Bednar responded,

“First
I want to change the question. There are no homosexual members of the church.
We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior.
We are sons and daughters of God and all of us have different challenges in the
flesh.”

Let’s break this statement down and analyze it. Taken as a whole this statement
is patently false. The church does have homosexual members. They may be “in the
closet” or they may be out but “not acting on their urges.” Membership in the
community of “sons and daughters of God” is not mutually exclusive with being
members of communities which identify on sexual orientation. Also, Church
leaders clearly define the importance of our sexual orientation since
the church, in its “Proclamation to the Family” boldly declares that the only
Godly sanctioned relationship is that of “one man and one woman”… in other
words, a heterosexual relationship. It serves to demonstrate that the church
values heterosexuality.

Psychologically, this statement is an act of trivializing a core component of
human identity. It is a form of shaming by minimizing. It is analogous to
saying “Your sexual identity is meaningless.” Your sexual identity is a base
(foundational) component in your overall identity. In trivializing gender
attraction, Bednar is intimating that it is an unimportant aspect of
life…suggesting to homosexuals that living a celibate life without intimacy
doesn’t matter. It trivializes those who are same sex oriented and ignores their
need for human intimacy.

Bednar then goes on to make an apples-to-oranges comparison.

“Would
it be a challenge to be very beautiful or very handsome, and in the world in
which we live, never develop deep character because we are able to open doors
and have success just because of our physical appearance? And we become shallow
and superficial in many aspects of our lives.”

In Mormonism, physical beauty is not considered in any way “sinful” nor is one
so gifted punished for utilizing their beauty or physical attraction as an
advantage. Shallow people are not “eternally condemned” for being shallow. In
fact, comparing gender attraction with physical beauty is shallow, in and of
itself. The major difference between “acting on beauty” and “acting on
homosexual gender attraction” though, buys you a one-way ticket to a
“disciplinary council” where members are punished for homosexual behavior.

“Some
people have physical limitations. They may be born with a body that is not
fully functional, or we may have an inclination to be attracted to those of the
same sex.”

This statement is a deliberate attempt to insinuate that
people with same sex gender orientation are somehow broken, thus the comparison
to people who are handicapped in some way. It is, again, shaming through the
use of trivialization. It is roughly equivalent to saying “These people who are
legally recognized as broken are able to cope with their disabilities, so what
are you whining about? They have to live with their ‘problems’ so why can’t you
shut up and just endure like they do?” It is another apples-to-oranges
comparison, because again, those with disabilities aren’t going to be
“eternally condemned” for “acting on their disabilities.”

“Through the atonement of Jesus Christ we
are blessed with moral agency. Agency is the capacity to act and not simply be
acted upon.” [Picks up water
bottle and holds above his head] “This is a bottle of water. It’s an object.
It has no capacity to act. It is an object that can only be acted upon. So this
object moves if I cause it to move, or if some other force causes it to move. You
and I are not objects. We are agents. Blessed with agency because of the
atonement of Christ, and with that agency we are to act and not be acted upon.
That agency gives us the capacity to determine how we will respond to the
variety of challenges we will experience in the flesh. So, you choose, you act
in accordance with the teachings of Christ.”

In this statement, Bednar is shaming homosexuals through what I would
call “spiritual abuse.” He deceptively trivializes both the power of sexual
urges, and the human need for companionship and intimacy.
In every single human society, solitary confinement is a punishment reserved
for the worst of criminals. In requiring homosexuals to act against their
gender orientation, he is cruelly advocating for a life of celibacy and
loneliness, a life without intimacy, tantamount to social solitary confinement.
His use of “choice” is not actually “choice”, but an imposed “moral imperative”
for gays and lesbians to act against their own best interests. His presumptive use of “acting in accordance
with the teachings of Christ” implies that homosexuality pits them “against
Christ.” Yet, there is no scriptural
basis to conclude that Christ was opposed to homosexuality. He was surprisingly
silent on the subject.

“Simply
being attracted to someone of the same gender is not a sin.”

It wasn’t that many years ago that Same Sex Attraction (SSA) was
considered to be a sin. This statement
at least shows that LDS leaders have finally recognized that homosexuality is
an inborn trait rather than a choice. Too bad they are unable to accept that
perhaps God has a purpose for gays. Doesn’t an inborn trait indicate that maybe
God made them that way?

There are many members of the church who
may have some manifestation of that attraction. They honor their covenants,
they keep the commandments, they are worthy. They can receive the blessings of
the temple and they can serve in the church. It is when we act on the
inclination or the attraction – that’s when it becomes a sin. So, the reason I
began my answer as I did, is that in this question, the word
"homosexual" was used to describe or label a member of the church.
It’s an inaccurate label. We are sons and daughter of god and we determine how
respond to the variety of challenges we experience in mortality through the
proper exercise of our moral agency.”

This is basically a reiteration of what was stated above. Yes, there
ARE homosexuals, and the label is accurate. I agree that it isn’t a complete
picture of an individual. That said, sexual orientation is certainly a core
part of an individual’s identity and the entire statement is again a
reiteration of the imposed “moral imperative” with another dose of
trivialization. “They are worthy” is a subtle reminder that these men believe
firmly that they have the right to judge and condemn. Sadly, members of the
church believe they have that right too.

“Moral agency” is Mormon codespeak for “sexual behavior.” Sexual shame is the
lynchpin for LDS leadership to exert control in the Mormon community. This blog
explains in more detail.

“Now I want to speak very directly to you.
The world teaches that we must be tolerant and accepting. There are some things
we do not accept or tolerate. We love all people with whatever challenge any
person faces.”

This statement is the church’s “line in the sand”… the point with which
they refuse to move. The overt message
is that we love everyone no matter what their problems are, but the covert
message is “if you are gay and act on it, you are outta here.” Restated, it is
“we accept but we don’t, we tolerate but we don’t do that either.”

“The
purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and of the Savior's church, is to assist
people in receiving the strength to deal with the challenge.”

-- It is important to recognize
that this statement is a blaming statement. If you do not receive such help
then “somehow” the blame is on you. You weren’t righteous enough or you didn’t
pray hard enough, or in some other way “YOU” are at fault. This message is the
one that results in suicides. It is also the excuse used by church leaders to
use shame and guilt over normal sexual behavior to take punitive actions
against members. This statement is used to steal sexual empowerment from
members.

Finally, the next statement is where we get to the crux of the matter.

“So
we do not discriminate, and we are not bigots. We extend Christ-like love to
all sons and daughters of God.”

Except…they do discriminate and they are bigots! This
statement is an outright lie. They extend neither tolerance nor love to sons
and daughters which act on homosexual “urges” even in legally sanctioned
unions. They promptly expunge them from
the records of the church. Bigotry is defined as “treating someone with prejudice
based on an inborn trait such as skin color, DNA, and other such traits” of
which gender orientation is included. Facebook is exposing many instances where
married gays and lesbians are being called into so-called “courts of love” and
excommunicated. In many cases these couples haven’t been actively involved in
the church for a long time, yet Church leaders are practically dragging them in
to “disciplinary courts” to shame and excommunicate them. This is an expression
of love? I certainly don’t want to see
what their “hate” looks like. It certainly demonstrates both discrimination and
bigotry.

The rest of his comments refer to the “Proclamation to
the Family” which form the basis of Mormonism’s institutionalized bigotry.

In the end, the church has every right to discriminate against lesbians, gays,
bisexuals, and the transgendered. If they were honest, they would simply
acknowledge their bigotry and their religious right to do so. To deny that it
is bigotry though, is deceitful. To claim that “we do not discriminate” when
clearly they do, is a lie.

According to the scriptures, “by their fruits ye shall know them” and the
fruits of LDS leaders are rotten. They demonstrate love which is not love,
kindness which is not kind, tolerance which is not tolerant and “truth” which
is built on lies.

It doesn’t much seem to match Jesus’ command to “love one another,” does it?

(Here is the transcribed text of Bednar’s comments. I am
including them here so that those who are interested have full context.)

Question:

How can homosexual members of the church live and remain
steadfast in the gospel?

Bednar’s response:

First I want to change the question. There are no
homosexual members of the church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We
are not defined by sexual behavior. We are sons and daughters of God and all of
us have different challenges in the flesh. There are many different types of
challenges. Would it be a challenge to be very beautiful or very handsome, and
in the world in which we live, never develop deep character because we are able
to open doors and have success just because of our physical appearance? And we
become shallow and superficial in many aspects of our lives.

That can be a challenge in the flesh.

Some people have physical limitations. They may be born
with a body that is not fully functional, or we may have an inclination to be
attracted to those of the same sex. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ we
are blessed with moral agency. Agency is the capacity to act and not simply be
acted upon.

[Picks up water bottle and holds above his head]

This is a bottle of water. It’s an object. It has no
capacity to act. It is an object that can only be acted upon. So this object
moves if I cause it to move, or if some other force causes it to move. My wife
is afraid I'm going to hit her with the bottle of water.

You and I are not objects. We are agents. Blessed with
agency because of the atonement of Christ, and with that agency we are to act
and not be acted upon. That agency gives us the capacity to determine how we
will respond to the variety of challenges we will experience in the flesh. So,
you choose, you act in accordance with the teachings of Christ.

Simply being attracted to someone of the same gender is
not a sin. There are many members of the church who may have some manifestation
of that attraction. They honor their covenants, they keep the commandments,
they are worthy. They can receive the blessings of the temple and they can
serve in the church. It is when we act on the inclination or the attraction –
that’s when it becomes a sin. So, the reason I began my answer as I did, is
that in this question, the word "homosexual" was used to describe or
label a member of the church. It’s an inaccurate label. We are sons and
daughter of god and we determine how respond to the variety of challenges we
experience in mortality through the proper exercise of our moral agency.

Now I want to speak very directly to you. The world
teaches that we must be tolerant and accepting. There are some things we do not
accept or tolerate. We love all people with whatever challenge any person
faces. The purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and of the Savior's church,
is to assist people in receiving the strength to deal with the challenge. So we do not discriminate, and we are not
bigots. We extend Christ-like love to all sons and daughters of God.

But what is the purpose of the father's plan? We come to
the earth, we are blessed to receive a physical body. Marriage between a man
and woman is ordained of God, and the family is central to the Father's plan
for the eternal destiny and happiness of his children. That plan is halted in
anything but a marriage between a man and a woman. Now, Joseph Smith didn’t
create the plan. Thomas Monson didn’t create the plan. God the eternal father
created the plan. The savior through his atonement makes the plan operational,
effective in our lives, and the father has not changed his mind about how the
plan should operate. So please do not let the voices of the world confuse you
or lead you in a different direction, as you come to better understand the
fathers plan, then you will understand the purpose for marriage between a man
and a woman. I hope that’s responsive to the question.

Anything that anyone would like to add?

A related point is that there is a divinely designed
difference between a female spirit and a male spirit. You need to read and
study over and over again the family proclamation. It teaches that gender is an
essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity
and purpose. So, whenever you take those divinely designed differences - the
capacities and talents of the female spirit and a male spirit, and they are
sealed together by the power of the priesthood, it creates a unity and a
oneness, a whole, that cannot be achieved any other way. Sister Bednar and I
have been married for 41 years. She is, other than the Holy Ghost, she is the
greatest teacher I have ever had. She does not think like I think. She does not
see what I see, and I learn a lot from the things that she thinks and sees that
are different from me. Sometimes men and women get frustrated with each other
because they don’t see things the same way. They're not supposed to see things
the same way. And the education that comes from a man and a woman in a marriage
ordained of God is one of the richest blessings in this life.

Now we've taken a long time in responding to this
question, but hopefully you can sense that the length of this answer emphasizes
the importance of this topic in the world in which we live. That's why we've
taken quite so long.

2 comments:

This guy is a complete Moron! (Mormon)The Mormon church is the most ineffective vehicle for personal change and psychological help in existence today. Go ask any Mormon who has been in recovery from alcoholism how much the church helped them. In almost every case you'll find that the guilt and shame coupled with the absolute, intolerant, rigid distorted thinking of the Church leaders, doctrines, and members had only added fuel to the fire of their addictions. Once they disengage from that distorted thinking and go to an outside source of help such as AA, they get the real help they need for recovery. My point is this, they profess to have the answers for all of life's problems and they profess that one cannot be fully healed of anything except through the "Atonement" of Jesus Christ as administered through their authority. If such were the case, no one would ever leave their church and flocks of people would be running to their church for this "magic elixir" of life. Their church membership is shrinking due to being so completely out of touch with human development and the psychology of good critical thinking. They sign people up to be members of their church, baptize them, and put their name's down as members only to find out later that they feel duped later on and walk away and never come back. The church never formally takes their names out of the membership records so they can bolster up their numbers to make the claim that "they are the fastest growing religion on the face of the earth". Their beginnings were corrupt and they haven't changed at all since. Just another out of control corporation capitalizing on gullible and weak minded or the innocence of the youth that have grown up drinking the cult's kool aid and knowing no different. In the name of Cheese and Rice, Amen.

If Bednar were being honest concerning the church policy about LGBT people, he could have quoted Donald Trump "Get em out of here. They don't belong here. Throw em out."

I think his assholiness is actually helping to decouple thinking people from the church - which, although painful, is a very good thing! While Monson drools out the rest of his life in a power chair with nurses and toadies playing the prophet, seer, and revelator game; the church is imploding because it's neither holy nor relevant, and the internet is peeling away the church's psychological fuckery layer by later, one reddit / facebook / twitter post at a time.